Strong US Military Key to Peace and Prosperity

[paparazziparks]

maybe a STRONG economy is the word for prosperity and peace, instead of wasteful money spent on wars we don't need to be in. Does this require logic?

Ding Ding Ding!

 

[flightlesskiwi]

Only on foreign policy, not domestic, and it works out fine when your the dictator; which we are.

i'm just quoting this for emphasis. i think this little sentence provides much insight as to the OP's personal beliefs.

like pretty much everyone refuting the "might makes right" assumption of the OP-- the benevolent dictator scenario throughout history has been repeatedly and systematically proven to be a failure.

his "arguments" strike me as Krugman-ish/Keynesian in nature. granted, without the "war" component. the OP misses a major component: the human nature factor in his "pragmatic" approach.

 

[flightlesskiwi]

just so we're clear, under a Ron Paul presidency, the US Military would still be the strongest in the world, and the strongest the world has ever seen.

we are crystal clear, imo. Ron Paul has the only Constitutional non-interventionist foreign policy that doesn't finally push our military past the breaking point of no return.

we cannot sustain the path we are on. militarily, economically, nationally. all the other candidates are delusional and they assume that we can.

 

[moderate libertarian]

The problem with having a really strong military compared to the rest of the world is that you start to believe that you can do whatever you want wherever in the world you want. ...

When you have a big hammer as your main tool, every problem starts to look like a nail.

 

[Pericles]

The issue with the policy advocated by the OP is that there is no force level that can assure that no other entity will decide to engage in armed conflict.

The rise of non state actors (including terror groups) in the 20th Century allow for disproportionate resource levels being brought into the conflict. Consider the cost of 19 people with a plan to hijack airlines capable of killing 3000 people to the cost of the dozen carrier groups, 36 air wings, 6 Marine Regiments, and 10 Army divisions which were unable to deter or defeat a well disciplined group with a paln and determination to engage in conflict regardless of cost to itself.

 

[pcosmar]

While very Libertarian on domestic policy my interest in history required me to be much more pragmatic in my views of foreign policy.

Pax Americana is Latin for “The American Peace” and the term is symbolic of an irrefutable truth that history has taught us. Throughout recorded history when one nation proved itself to be a dominating military power what resulted were periods unprecedented peace. In these times of peace humanity is been able to focus its collective energy in intellectual and commercial directions. Conversely, when many nations have comparable military strength, war inevitably follows and human progress stagnates or regresses.

What a load of Horse Shit.

In the entire human history there have been few and short lived periods of peace.
In the very short history of "America",, peace has been rare.

Where do these idiots come up with this shit?

 

[virgil47]

kiwi is right. We need defense, not a strong standing army.

"What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."
-Eldrige Gerry, member of the Constitutional Convention-who (rightly so) refused to sign the Constitution because it consolidated too much power in the central government

I'm sorry but I had to burst out in laughter upon reading your quote. The Militia of today is by and large composed of arm chair, beer swilling Rambos. The thought of actually getting these humble and well meaning folks involved in national defense in any meaningful way is hilarious. Of course if we had a couple of years in which to train these folks up to the standards of regular Army we might have a chance to use them effectively.

 

[virgil47]

maybe a STRONG economy is the word for prosperity and peace, instead of wasteful money spent on wars we don't need to be in. Does this require logic?

Nice thought but wrong. A strong economy coupled with a weak or run of the mill military invites the predatory intentions of foreign powers.

 

[virgil47]

When you have a big hammer as your main tool, every problem starts to look like a nail.

I seem to remember that one of our presidents,whom I believe was Teddy Roosevelt, said that the U.S. should "walk softly but carry a big stick". So what you are saying is if we are carrying "a big stick" we will automatically and absolutely become a bully? So what is your alternative? Should we simply surrender to those that wish to control us and our way of life?

 

[Danke]

Should we simply surrender to those that wish to control us and our way of life?

I think most of us already have.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I'm sorry but I had to burst out in laughter upon reading your quote. The Militia of today is by and large composed of arm chair, beer swilling Rambos. The thought of actually getting these humble and well meaning folks involved in national defense in any meaningful way is hilarious. Of course if we had a couple of years in which to train these folks up to the standards of regular Army we might have a chance to use them effectively.

Yeah, those National Guard folks sure are a bunch of beer-swilling wusses! Why, they could never be up to going to Afghanistan! (the National Guard is the modern equivalent of the militia, FYI)

 

[Southron]

I'm sorry but I had to burst out in laughter upon reading your quote. The Militia of today is by and large composed of arm chair, beer swilling Rambos. The thought of actually getting these humble and well meaning folks involved in national defense in any meaningful way is hilarious. Of course if we had a couple of years in which to train these folks up to the standards of regular Army we might have a chance to use them effectively.

I see you have bought into the stupid stereotypes perpetuated by the media.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I see you have bought into the stupid stereotypes perpetuated by the media.

qft. Where the hell did that stupid stereotype come from, anyway?

 

[virgil47]

Yeah, those National Guard folks sure are a bunch of beer-swilling wusses! Why, they could never be up to going to Afghanistan! (the National Guard is the modern equivalent of the militia, FYI)

FYI you are incorrect! The "NATIONAL" Guard are Federal military troops. The only militias that still exist are the good old boy networks that bemoan the wrongs of the fed. gov. but are not willing to help their neighbors when the floods and such occur.

 

[simon1911]

Ron Paul Presidency does mean strong military. If there are dangers in the world, RP will of course act but through the proper way. This means having wars declared by Congress. If there are pirates in the seas, RP will ask for a letter of marque and reprisal. Our military is for the defense of our country.

 

[virgil47]

I see you have bought into the stupid stereotypes perpetuated by the media.

Really? Do you speak from experience? I don't think so.

 

[virgil47]

Ron Paul Presidency does mean strong military. If there are dangers in the world, RP will of course act but through the proper way. This means having wars declared by Congress. If there are pirates in the seas, RP will ask for a letter of marque and reprisal. Our military is for the defense of our country.

I agree. Ron Paul does indeed understand that in order for peace to blossom strength must be displayed but not used foolishly.

 

[GuerrillaXXI]

I absolutely agree, but we should also strive to have a military strong enough to take the force of arms off the table for every other nation in the world.

Our nuclear deterrent alone is enough to prevent any serious aggression by a foreign power. A strong navy is also worthwhile. But we don't need to have significant (if any) standing infantry forces. They really serve no purpose in the modern age except to invade and occupy foreign countries and to endanger our liberties here at home.

I think we should try at all costs to stay our of ground wars and especially prolonged occupations. And the absolute last thing we should be doing is going to war to spread Democracy to nations who don't want it.

No argument there.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

FYI you are incorrect! The "NATIONAL" Guard are Federal military troops. The only militias that still exist are the good old boy networks that bemoan the wrongs of the fed. gov. but are not willing to help their neighbors when the floods and such occur.

Nope, I'm correct. Each state has their own guard. The state guards do not become "nationalized" until the Federal government calls upon them (such as the Afghanistan example). Are you 16 or something? This is not new information, bro. Here's my state's NG site: http://www.azguard.gov/ Every state has one. Now, go educate yourself and excuse yourself from this thread before you make a complete fool of yourself.

 

[Pericles]

Nope, I'm correct. Each state has their own guard. The state guards do not become "nationalized" until the Federal government calls upon them (such as the Afghanistan example). Are you 16 or something? This is not new information, bro. Here's my state's NG site: http://www.azguard.gov/ Every state has one. Now, go educate yourself and excuse yourself from this thread before you make a complete fool of yourself.

In this case, you need the education. First, check out Perpich vs. DoD, when Gov. Perpich thought the National Guard of his state answered to him, and the Sec. of Defense set the Governor straight. All National Guard equipment remains property of the federal government. Summary: the Governor can use the National Guard if the feds say it is OK for him to use it.The National Guard is not the militia of the serveral states, as the National Guard was created under the power of Congress to raise and support armies, not the power to arm and organize the militia, because the militia can not be used involuntarily outside of the borders of the US. See the Senate Judiciary report on this matter:

http://www.constitution.org/mil/rkba1982.htm